Who's threatening whom? A picture is worth a thousand words.
Mariposa
2011/12/28 00:45:58
http://www.bluerepublican.org/2011/12/whos-threatening-whom/
Each star marks a US military base, but just so we’re clear: Iran is threatening us; we’re not threatening them
Each star marks a US military base, but just so we’re clear: Iran is threatening us; we’re not threatening them
Top Opinion
-
Dark Demonic™ ★ The Origina... 2011/12/28 00:51:44
+15If I was surrounded by people who actually live by the motto, "We come in peace, shoot to kill", I'd probably get a little irritated myself.
As soon as you start fighting back, they claim "You're threatening US, we're not threatening YOU at all!"
I'm sure you'd say "Oh alright, yes, you're right, I'll leave you in peace to invade my country now"
Statement of Principles
3.1 NATIONAL DEFENSE: We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
3.3 International Affairs "...Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements."
http://www.LittleScroll.com
Is it truly helpful or respectful to Israel to be blatantly in the face of her enemies on her behalf, simultaneously allied with many nations against her enemies? Always stirring bees against Israel?
imo, That is not standing with her.
Also, consider her nukes, see maps, see allied forces all around, and see above statement/speech by PM Netanyahu. Is he wrong or lying? What do you think?
http://www.constitutionparty....
American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
The intergovernment greater org, however, is scary to me, mostly because its interworkings and connected powers are illusive, and people don't realize the grand scheme of the UN, I imagine, nor do they get a say in it.
The WTO and IMF alone have a lot of hidden and expansive powers...
What was your experience/knowledge of the funding situation at Unicef?
The private orgs, and many of the religion based org.s, as a rule, are much better funded, in that the records are better kept/tracked, and a much greater percentage of the funding actually gets to the people/project intended, without fear of being attached to gov-related associations' intervention/direction and repercussion, foreign and domestic. i.e., We could still do the same good works, just within our own gov. and privately-- and more and better, without having to trust hazy world org attachments, imo.
and the image here is old and likely very out of date but it still holds that we have a lot of bases around the world
http://www.alternet.org/world...
"On its 62nd year, NATO continues to expand its military operations – including the current war in Afghanistan and recent military attacks on Libya. We should not be surprised by the NATO attack on Libya, as the programme for wars was revealed to us by US General Lesley Clarke, NATO commander during the bombing of Serbia, stating on American TV seven years earlier, in 2001, that the Pentagon had drawn up a ‘hit list’ of seven states they wanted to ‘take-out’ within five years – Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."
http://www.transcend.org/tms/...
Doctrine. Now, We were at war in Iraq and Afganistan so by virtue have the right to be there. If a forrign power wants to invade they can do it as well and I am sure we would fight back...at least I hope so....I am more doubtful in my older age. We had an Isolationist view point once before...It got us Pearl Harbor and perhaps the worst peace time military we have EVER had...1940. From Here to Eternity was addressing it however, does better in the book then the film. The problem with war as it exists now is very clear...WE DON'T FIGHT IT THE WAY WE DID IN WW2 WHEN WE LIKED WINNING! The first thing a gutsey President should do is revoke the rules of engagement...I love ity when politicians say we can not win in IRAQ or some other ridiculas country...The problem is that we are more interested in prosecuting a marine who may have harmed a civillian instead of beating a country into utter submission so that THE PEOPLE demand that their gov. behave in a civilized fashion. Sir. I ...
Doctrine. Now, We were at war in Iraq and Afganistan so by virtue have the right to be there. If a forrign power wants to invade they can do it as well and I am sure we would fight back...at least I hope so....I am more doubtful in my older age. We had an Isolationist view point once before...It got us Pearl Harbor and perhaps the worst peace time military we have EVER had...1940. From Here to Eternity was addressing it however, does better in the book then the film. The problem with war as it exists now is very clear...WE DON'T FIGHT IT THE WAY WE DID IN WW2 WHEN WE LIKED WINNING! The first thing a gutsey President should do is revoke the rules of engagement...I love ity when politicians say we can not win in IRAQ or some other ridiculas country...The problem is that we are more interested in prosecuting a marine who may have harmed a civillian instead of beating a country into utter submission so that THE PEOPLE demand that their gov. behave in a civilized fashion. Sir. I may sound like a war monger...I assure you...I hate war. My Grandfather fought in the battle of Okinawa....A NIGHTMARE...but sometimes to go forward to a world that has little or no war we must be willing to destroy destruction and evil. Some coutries simply do not afford the people any rights. If we are truly part of the family of the world should we really sit back and let those countries do as they please...I end with this and hope if you address any of what I have written you will at least address this...
WHAT WOULD YOUR MR. PAUL HAVE DONE WHEN HE HEARD OF MR. HITLER's concentration camp's? Would HE HAVE CALLED IT AN iNTERNAL PROBLEM?
HOW ABOUT THE RAPE OF NANGKING? WAS THAT SIMPLY A FORRIEGN WAR?
When there is nothing worth fighting for,there is nothing much worth living for.
Who is threatening who? That was what I was trying to convey, The United States government is clearly the aggressors in this case as they were from 1953 - 1979.